Words
 
 
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
I was reading an on line article by someone writing for a Christian organization telling of how persons of faith should denounce cruelty to, "innocent animals." Hmmm. I think my fellow Christian brothers and sisters who hold to this axiom need to take a second look at that statement. Not that I don't agree with the sentiment behind the words or its principals; I do believe it, with all my heart. Being a Christian, I know that God gave all cre3atures into the hands of man for care, for aid, for food, and for companionship and many other uses. Being thoughtful, kind and gentle to our environment and all that is contained therein is a grave responsibility we must take very seriously. However, I do have a problem with using the words 'innocent' and 'animal' in an equative way. What I mean is, when you do this, you make a category mistake. Would we say, My cell phone is angry today? Or, Hey, did you hear that flavor? No, of course not. Why? Because it doesn't work, it doesn't fit, it erroneously affords a characteristic or distinction to something that can't employ it. Sometimes in fiction we might read of inanimate objects 'feeling' things, or animals thinking and planning something with abstract intended results, but we know it's fiction. We know that rocks don't have pity on the land, or that a horse doesn't contemplate suicide because it has lost a foal. But somehow, when it comes to animals, we are footloose and fancy free with moral attributions. Little Pookie has been a bad boy today, or as a friend of mine once told me, "That damned dog, he knows he did wrong." Uh...no. He doesn't. Innocence and guilt are reserved for the human species only, neither of which animals have. Andrea Yates was accused of and was tried for killing her five children. Would there have been a trial if she had been, say, a leopard or a shark. No. Why not? Naturally, because an animal has the privilege of killing any or all of its young with no repercussions whatsoever. We don't. We cannot kill indiscriminately without incurring the moral and or judicial wrath of the community in which we live. When a mountain lion kills a human being, we hunt it down and destroy it. We don't do this because it is guilty of breaking our law against murder, we do it because now it has tasted human flesh and is therefore aware of how weak and available we are and will very likely seek to prey upon people again. I hope I'm not nit picking here. I understand what the person in the article was trying to convey when he said that Christians should be kind to animals. However, I just wish that those on the side of God, and everyone else for that matter, would be a bit more cautious with their words. So let us take care and weigh severely what we speak of or write about. We've lost our way when it comes to the precious gift of language. Words mean things. And the wrong words can cause confusion at the least, and catastrophic human destruction at the worst. Many innocent people have perished because of ill spoken and hateful words. Also, many desperate and needy people have been saved because of compassionate and merciful words? Words. They have created worlds and have destroyed lives. Let us treat them with the respect they so deserve. "The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." Adolph Hitler. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." A Jew
mailto:kecksworld@joekeck.com?subject=Taxonomy%20of%20a%20genremailto:kecksworld@joekeck.com?subject=Words